It’s a great example. That you think that all the media told the same story is exactly why we think you’re a dumbass.
If you believe the USA, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia etc all have the same media you are not a serious person.
“Western media” is not a thing.
1 Like
I dunno, man. I’ve heard a theory about how they’re all controlled by the same people!
2 Likes
Like do these very smart serious people think French media is supporting American Imperialism?
Some media did, Victor. Some. Again, try reading what was actually said.
Trying to boil the world down into a singular evil you need to worry about, the USA, and a singular media that feeds propaganda to the masses is not enlightenment.
You are literally the one saying all “western media” is the same! That’s your point! You could say American media! You are explicitly choosing not to do so!
Not only did the French media oppose the Iraq War, so did the French government.
You literally denied the existence of any dissenting voices in the media in the run up to the Iraq war.
Self-defense isn’t war.
Victor already has stated that he gets the majority if his news from headlines. He doesn’t have the cognitive wattage to actually read and synthesize anything more complicated.
Yeah, fuck reading.
It will shock no one to find out that Johnstone has Views about the Uyghurs:
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1280675015487156224?s=20&t=7KNtLyJpBCXeNT_OkGGDqA
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1280675015487156224?s=20&t=7KNtLyJpBCXeNT_OkGGDqA
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1280675017055862784?s=20&t=7KNtLyJpBCXeNT_OkGGDqA
This is mostly false. Xinjiang (excuse me, “Xinjiang”) was controlled by the Han and the Tang, but it slipped out of Chinese control during the An Lushan rebellion in the 8th century. Even during the Mongol period, Xinjiang (sorry, “Xinjiang”) and the main part of China weren’t united–by the time Kubilai defeated the Song, the rest of the Mongol Empire (including so-called Xinjiang) had slipped out of his control. Over a thousand years later (around the time the US was conquering the Phillippines), it was conquered by the Qing. Then after the collapse of the Qing, it once again slipped into a quasi-independent state and was mostly controlled by the Soviet Union. Then, finally, in 1949, Stalin had its leadership killed and let Mao take it over.
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1280675030469275648?s=20&t=7KNtLyJpBCXeNT_OkGGDqA
Turns out there’s just a lot of “separatists” and “Islamic fundamentalists” in “Xinjiang.” (Wait, is it cool to send people to reeducation camps just because they adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam? Probably best not to worry about that.)
That said, I think the article is actually on to a kernel of truth. It is very easy to identify as antiwar when the example case you’re thinking of as “war” is some completely unjustified act of aggression. It’s a lot harder to categorically oppose war in closer cases. It’s a genuinely tough question if you identify as an antiwar person to say whether the Ukrainian people should allow its government to be controlled by a foreign country rather than risk a violent revolt. It’s hard to say whether the Ukrainian government should allow big slices of its territory to be annexed by Russia as the price of peace. But the reason those things are tough is that the initial claim that war is the ultimate evil and all wars must be opposed was too easily accepted. War is very bad, and many wars are clearly awful, but other things are very bad too, and sometimes countries have to pick the least bad solution.
7 Likes
Ok I see. Not anti-imperialist, just anti-American. I mean, at least it’s an ethos.
Seriously though, your sense of history is problematically myopic. Russian defense strategy has always been to annex, occupy, or control as vassal states most of the peoples of eastern Europe. That’s how they defeated Napoleon, that’s how they defeated Hitler, that’s how they think they’ll defeat the next European invasion. There are a few geographic features Russia needs to control to feel safe, and they’re all on the other side of Ukraine. This invasion was inevitable (and has been ongoing since 2014 in case you forgot.)
Would it have been less bloody if Ukraine had no army and had just rolled over? Maybe. A bit. Was that for us to decide? Fuck no, wtf.
1 Like
usa held and offered putin like 3 summits in the past 5 years. it’s weird he didn’t use those opportunities to mitigate with nato until after he gathered an invasion force and made an ultimatum to pull all the way back to western germany
eta: lolviktar
No. Nothing at all points to that. This situation is older than the USA itself. Moscow has imperial ambitions and a geography that makes those ambitions problematic.
This thread is going to be fun when May 9 rolls around.
What’s the significance of May 9th?
mobilization day in russia